Should We Blindly Support the Police?

[Truebeliever]

Certainly anything posted publicly is fair game to be monitored.

And any clear and present suggestion of an actual crime being planned or committed should be dealt with appropriately.

I don't think anyone has a problem with that.

The line is crossed when government agents attempt to influence or disrupt *non* criminal dissent.

When you start seeing government agents "stop by" to "have a chat" and the intention is intimidation not investigation, then we have a very serious problem.

Agreed. And it is concerning but as I wrote, someone might have suggested something illegal, even if minor, and the cops figured out a way to warn them before thd police brass had someone there waiting for them to do it .
Remember, the Canadian government is threatening people just for sending money to support the truckers . Imagine if these people said something like let’s block the road , and their boss had some cops waiting for them. How could they warn them? You just saw it in the video.

 

[Truebeliever]

I understand the justification.

I just don't agree with it.

It's perfectly reasonable to have a process where a group can reserve a public resource like a road for the purpose of a demonstration.

It's another thing entirely to criminalize such a demonstration if conducted without government permission.

As soon as permission must be obtained, the right has ceased to be a right.

Take it to the next step. If someone wanted to protest and a different and rival group wanted to protest that day and at that location ? It happens all the time especially with counter-protests. The permit usually allows planning so both sides can safely protest their cause.
But I have seen where it has gone wrong. It would happen a lot more without the parade permit system.

 

[spat]

Take it to the next step. If someone wanted to protest and a different and rival group wanted to protest that day and at that location ? It happens all the time especially with counter-protests. The permit usually allows planning so both sides can safely protest their cause.
But I have seen where it has gone wrong. It would happen a lot more without the parade permit system.

Don't want to get a permit ? That's the risk you take.

One side reserves it, then they do have exclusive use of that space. But unless someone else has specifically reserved it, the government shouldn't be able to deny your use either.

Now, that's not to say that things like roads can't prohibit pedestrian traffic as a matter of course, or that you can block traffic on a sidewalk either.

But, no way should a government be able to just clear out a public park because the demonstrators didn't ask first.

 

[Truebeliever]

Don't want to get a permit ? That's the risk you take.

One side reserves it, then they do have exclusive use of that space. But unless someone else has specifically reserved it, the government shouldn't be able to deny your use either.

Now, that's not to say that things like roads can't prohibit pedestrian traffic as a matter of course, or that you can block traffic on a sidewalk either.

But, no way should a government be able to just clear out a public park because the demonstrators didn't ask first.

So your demonstration forces families out of the park who want to play and may have been there first? Central Park in Manhattan would be nothing but demonstrations all the time. The permit also tells how close the demonstrations can be. For example, 10 feet from the entrance of an abortion clinic. If the group is upset with the distance they can go to court to have it changed. They do it all the time .

It also tells authorities what it’s for so they can plan for the event. For example if the KKK wants to demonstrate in Harlem, the police need notification and time to get enough police officers in the area to handle it.
And let’s get to reality on the oppositing groups wanting to demonstrate in the same area at the same time. If both don’t have a a permit , don’t you think they both are going to claim to have been there first?

 

[spat]

So your demonstration forces families out of the park who want to play and may have been there first? Central Park in Manhattan would be nothing but demonstrations all the time. The permit also tells how close the demonstrations can be. For example, 10 feet from the entrance of an abortion clinic. If the group is upset with the distance they can go to court to have it changed. They do it all the time .

It also tells authorities what it’s for so they can plan for the event. For example if the KKK wants to demonstrate in Harlem, the police need notification and time to get enough police officers in the area to handle it.
And let’s get to reality on the oppositing groups wanting to demonstrate in the same area at the same time. If both don’t have a a permit , don’t you think they both are going to claim to have been there first?

Why does a family of 4 who wants to play frisbee have a greater claim on the park than a group of 100 who wants to demonstrate?

Seems to be the demonstators have about 25 times as much right to just show up and use the park.

If nobody has a permit, then it doesn't matter who got there first, neither side has a claim. Problem solved.

If they can't demonstrate peacefully then they get arrested and prosecuted for assault. Yep it'll turn into a big ol "he started it" mess. That's what we have courts for.

You're missing the whole point with the abortion permit business. They *shouldn't* be told how close they can be. That shouldn't be a thing at all.

If they are harassing or blocking people from entering, then arrest the people doing the blocking. Attempting to set some "10 feet OK, 9 feet bad" criteria is the wrong approach from the beginning.

If the KKK wants to demonstrate in Harlem, they would be wise to call the police ahead of time. But if they choose not to, that's going to be their problem.

 

[Truebeliever]

Why does a family of 4 who wants to play frisbee have a greater claim on the park than a group of 100 who wants to demonstrate?

Seems to be the demonstators have about 25 times as much right to just show up and use the park.

If nobody has a permit, then it doesn't matter who got there first, neither side has a claim. Problem solved.

If they can't demonstrate peacefully then they get arrested and prosecuted for assault. Yep it'll turn into a big ol "he started it" mess. That's what we have courts for.

You're missing the whole point with the abortion permit business. They *shouldn't* be told how close they can be. That shouldn't be a thing at all.

If they are harassing or blocking people from entering, then arrest the people doing the blocking. Attempting to set some "10 feet OK, 9 feet bad" criteria is the wrong approach from the beginning.

If the KKK wants to demonstrate in Harlem, they would be wise to call the police ahead of time. But if they choose not to, that's going to be their problem.

The KKk did get a permit in other areas and there was a police presence to match. It’s not just about protecting the KKK but everyone from the potential violence.

Let’s see, two groups want to use the park at the same time , and your answer is neither can use it as your solution? Basically that means counter-protesters win every time.
And 100 people who show up one time have more rights than the people who live there, pay the taxes for that park, but just didn’t show up in numbers every day or the day the protesters chose to show up? People who even don’t live in the area get MORE access to the park because they came as a group —mob mentality?

Your 10 feet vs 9 probably has been argued in court somewhere but in reality is simple. It’s where the police barrier is set up. Protesters on one side of the barrier, pedestrians or other traffic on the other so they can walk or travel by. The barrier usually just one of those wooden saw horses or a waist high fence. Sometimes it’s the thick ropes used at the movie theaters to create waiting lines.
The distance is mandated so the protesters aren’t blocking the entrance or sidewalk. It makes a clear differential to which group is which at a protest or what might consitute blocking . You don’t think an abortion rights advocate wouldn’t just claim they are blocking the entrance by their arbitrary standard? Or the pro-life would say they weren’t by their arbitrary standard ? This way the distance to the door to be blocking would not be arbitrary, hence in part why it’s done .

 

[Drinkthekoolaid]

@Truebeliever

I disagree with a lot of your positions but it's nice to see a civil disagreement with different viewpoints.

 

[spat]

The KKk did get a permit in other areas and there was a police presence to match. It’s not just about protecting the KKK but everyone from the potential violence.

Let’s see, two groups want to use the park at the same time , and your answer is neither can use it as your solution? Basically that means counter-protesters win every time.
And 100 people who show up one time have more rights than the people who live there, pay the taxes for that park, but just didn’t show up in numbers every day or the day the protesters chose to show up? People who even don’t live in the area get MORE access to the park because they came as a group —mob mentality?

Your 10 feet vs 9 probably has been argued in court somewhere but in reality is simple. It’s where the police barrier is set up. Protesters on one side of the barrier, pedestrians or other traffic on the other so they can walk or travel by. The barrier usually just one of those wooden saw horses or a waist high fence. Sometimes it’s the thick ropes used at the movie theaters to create waiting lines.
The distance is mandated so the protesters aren’t blocking the entrance or sidewalk. It makes a clear differential to which group is which at a protest or what might consitute blocking . You don’t think an abortion rights advocate wouldn’t just claim they are blocking the entrance by their arbitrary standard? Or the pro-life would say they weren’t by their arbitrary standard ? This way the distance to the door to be blocking would not be arbitrary, hence in part why it’s done .

Nope, nobody reserves it, they both get to use it, just not exclusively.

Look, I get it, your job is to maintain order. That is a lot easier if everyone needs to play mother may I for everything they do.

But, and this is the crucial part, we shouldn't be restricting everyone's freedom just to make your job easier.

Public order is important, sure, but it *must* take a back seat to liberty. Every. Single. Time.

The very idea that you can issue "lawful orders" is an anethema to freedom. Every bit of authority you have derives from the legislature, so if they can't issue such an order, then you can't either.

 

[Truebeliever]

@Truebeliever

I disagree with a lot of your positions but it's nice to see a civil disagreement with different viewpoints.

I agree.

 

[Chevusa]

Every bit of authority you have derives from the legislature, so if they can't issue such an order, then you can't either.

Can you explain this? I'm not sure what you mean.

 

[Truebeliever]

Nope, nobody reserves it, they both get to use it, just not exclusively.

Look, I get it, your job is to maintain order. That is a lot easier if everyone needs to play mother may I for everything they do.

But, and this is the crucial part, we shouldn't be restricting everyone's freedom just to make your job easier.

Public order is important, sure, but it *must* take a back seat to liberty. Every. Single. Time.

The very idea that you can issue "lawful orders" is an anethema to freedom. Every bit of authority you have derives from the legislature, so if they can't issue such an order, then you can't either.

It’s not about making the job easier, it’s making the job possible and society work. Go look at what is happening with Antifa and the failure of police because the politicians say not to do things . They have taken over in areas like Chaz and CHOP as a result. That’s what your model of allowing “unorganized “protest is. Mob rule .

 

[spat]

Can you explain this? I'm not sure what you mean.

It's very simple.

The legislature is the only body in our government with the power to create law.

With the exception of some very specific powers created by the constitution itself, every other part of our government only has whatever powers the legislature has delegated to them.

So, logically if the legislature is forbidden from ordering something, they cannot empower anyone else to order it either.

 

[Chevusa]

It's very simple.

The legislature is the only body in our government with the power to create law.

With the exception of some very specific powers created by the constitution itself, every other part of our government only has whatever powers the legislature has delegated to them.

So, logically if the legislature is forbidden from ordering something, they cannot empower anyone else to order it either.

I agree. What specifically are you referring to? Sorry if I missed it. I can't read everything.

 

[spat]

It’s not about making the job easier, it’s making the job possible and society work. Go look at what is happening with Antifa and the failure of police because the politicians say not to do things . They have taken over in areas like Chaz and CHOP as a result. That’s what your model of allowing “unorganized “protest is. Mob rule .

Nope, not at all.

CHAZ/CHOP was actual insurrection, not protest.

Tell me again how the permit system stopped them ?

Oh, that's right, it didn't at all.


They were a result of the DA allowing them to do that. Permit laws or not were irrelevant.

 

[spat]

I agree. What specifically are you referring to? Sorry if I missed it. I can't read everything.

The idea that not every direction issues by a guy with a badge is a lawful order.

It's only a lawful order if they have the lawful authority to issue it, and what they have actual authority to order is very limited, and completely unrelated to whatever they think they might need to do their job.

 

[Chevusa]

The idea that not every direction issues by a guy with a badge is a lawful order.

It's only a lawful order if they have the lawful authority to issue it, and what they have actual authority to order is very limited, and completely unrelated to whatever they think they might need to do their job.

What order was issued unlawfully?

 

[SonOfSun]

 

[spat]

What order was issued unlawfully?

Lots of them, all the time ?

We're not discussing any specific incident. We're discussing general support for law enforcement.

Many of whom seem to think any order they need to issue to do their job becomes a lawful order.

 

[Truebeliever]

Nope, not at all.

CHAZ/CHOP was actual insurrection, not protest.

Tell me again how the permit system stopped them ?

Oh, that's right, it didn't at all.


They were a result of the DA allowing them to do that. Permit laws or not were irrelevant.

It started as a protest that built into something more. If the mayor had allowed it, they could have been arrested for the lack of a permit after being told to disperse. That order to disperse is based on not having the parade permit.
Want another example, Occupy Wall Street that moved to a privately owned park, therefore no need for that permit. Why did they move to that park. They were forced to because of the lack of the permit and the police enforcement of it.

 

[Truebeliever]

I think you are making too much of the permit process. Go read when you need one first then decide:

Do I Need a Permit to Hold a Demonstration, March or Rally or to Distribute Literature to the Public?​

It depends on what you want to do. If you as an individual or small group want to protest or distribute flyers, have a demonstration or rally on a public sidewalk, and do not intend to use amplified sound, you do not need any permit. You do not have to notify police or other local government authorities ahead of time, but can if you want to. If you want to hold an event with a large group or march in the street, you will need to seek a parade or rally permit from local government authorities ahead of time

Know Your Rights: Demonstrating in Central New York - NYCLU

Know Your Rights: Demonstrating in Central New York Download

www.nyclu.org

 

[Chevusa]

I think you are making too much of the permit process. Go read when you need one first then decide:

Do I Need a Permit to Hold a Demonstration, March or Rally or to Distribute Literature to the Public?​

It depends on what you want to do. If you as an individual or small group want to protest or distribute flyers, have a demonstration or rally on a public sidewalk, and do not intend to use amplified sound, you do not need any permit. You do not have to notify police or other local government authorities ahead of time, but can if you want to. If you want to hold an event with a large group or march in the street, you will need to seek a parade or rally permit from local government authorities ahead of time

Know Your Rights: Demonstrating in Central New York - NYCLU

Know Your Rights: Demonstrating in Central New York Download

www.nyclu.org

I wonder what they mean by “small group” or “large group”. Isn’t everyone going to have a different perception of that? When does a small group become large?

 

[Edwardteach72]

Ah yes "if only the government just allowed people to protest the government"

 

[Truebeliever]

I wonder what they mean by “small group” or “large group”. Isn’t everyone going to have a different perception of that? When does a small group become large?

That specific number usually is in local village, town or city law.
I saw one that said any gathering in the park over 20 people needed a permit . That’s not just for protest but any gathering .
Another place doesn’t set a number but that town has narrow sidewalks so any large number would be naturally forced onto the street.
That number is usually determined by the location .

 

[Chevusa]

That specific number usually is in local village, town or city law.
I saw one that said any gathering in the park over 20 people needed a permit . That’s not just for protest but any gathering .
Another place doesn’t set a number but that town has narrow sidewalks so any large number would be naturally forced onto the street.
That number is usually determined by the location .

I find the permit thing wrong just on its face. Just as a permit to own a firearm is wrong. Should I need to buy a permit to vote? How about getting a permit to attend church? Do I need a permit to post my opinions here?

 

[Truebeliever]

I find the permit thing wrong just on its face. Just as a permit to own a firearm is wrong. Should I need to buy a permit to vote? How about getting a permit to attend church? Do I need a permit to post my opinions here?

You do need a “ permit “ or register to vote. The only question is how difficult is it to get .

 

[Chevusa]

You do need a “ permit “ or register to vote. The only question is how difficult is it to get .

I guess it would depend on how you want to define things. You really just have to put your name down. You aren’t applying. You don’t have to satisfy any requirements. You can’t be denied.

 

[Truebeliever]

I guess it would depend on how you want to define things. You really just have to put your name down. You aren’t applying. You don’t have to satisfy any requirements. You can’t be denied.

Sure you do. You have live in the area . You have to be at least 18 years old , a US citizen( in most cases now-lol), and not a convicted felon in most places.
It’s based on the trust factor that you are telling the truth . So is the parade permit. People lie on both forms.

 

[Truebeliever]

I guess it would depend on how you want to define things. You really just have to put your name down. You aren’t applying. You don’t have to satisfy any requirements. You can’t be denied.

Just to add the government has to prove a legit reason to deny the permit . If it does, go to court if you disagree. The government does things like that all the time where you probably wouldn’t have a problem with it.

The government limits the number of people that can enter a church building for example. It’s called the fire code- a legit reason to limit the number of people in a building .

 

[spat]

It started as a protest that built into something more. If the mayor had allowed it, they could have been arrested for the lack of a permit after being told to disperse. That order to disperse is based on not having the parade permit.
Want another example, Occupy Wall Street that moved to a privately owned park, therefore no need for that permit. Why did they move to that park. They were forced to because of the lack of the permit and the police enforcement of it.

Right, the permit requirements were useless.

They could have been arrested for the wholesale criminal behavior even without permit requirements if the DA had the will, and the permit requirements were useless in stopping them with a DA that didn't want to persue it.

Therefore, the permit requirements are useless.

You don't need them to arrest criminals, and they don't stop criminals if the DA isn't going to enforce it anyway.

 

[spat]

Just to add the government has to prove a legit reason to deny the permit . If it does, go to court if you disagree. The government does things like that all the time where you probably wouldn’t have a problem with it.

The government limits the number of people that can enter a church building for example. It’s called the fire code- a legit reason to limit the number of people in a building .

Fire code occupancy limits are BS as well.

They can set recommendations, but actual enforcement is a blatant violation of the right to assembly.

"they do this all the time" is not a compelling argument that something is a legitimate restriction when you're talking about a government that routinely violates rights.